One of the big items in current news is that The National Enquirer has reported that, not only did former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards have an affair, as we've known for some time, but that he had a "love child."
It makes me sad when one of the many scandals that have tarred public figures, especially elected officials, affects a Democrat. We liberals can chuckle to ourselves when some righteous, morality-advocating Republican gets caught with his pants down (sometimes almost literally); but we'd rather not hear of an instance when it's a Democrat.
But what's especially interesting is that the publisher of this news is The National Enquirer, a so-called supermarket tabloid. This is the paper that not only repeatedly has some scandal to report about show business people—that their marriages are breaking up, that they've gained or lost weight, that they are the child of someone whom we didn't know—ad nauseam.
And it's also the paper with headlines about space aliens, conspiracies, cover-ups, and so forth. We have tended to dismiss them as not respectable, certainly not credible, and only appealing to the very credulous.
Now, however, we have to look at the Enquirer in a different light. They have said that they worked on the Edwards story for a year. "Pulitzer Prize" and the name of the Enquirer have been mentioned in the same sentence.
Who woulda thunk it? What is the world coming to?
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Toyota Recall
Another big news story just now—really a continuing story, with a new chapter every few days—is the so-called Toyota recall.
If you have been hiding out in a cave or on top of the Himalayas for a while, the story is about a problem of some Toyota and Lexus models such that they accelerate out of control. This problem has even caused fatal crashes.
First the problem was blamed on floor mats that were catching the accelerator pedals and making them stick in a depressed position. Then it seemed it was not so simple. There's even been some talk that it's a software problem. (These days, a lot of cars are "drive by wire," where, rather than the gas pedal just having a mechanical link to the throttle on the engine, the gas pedal is really an electrical or electronic control, and the car's computer mediates between the pedal's input and the engine's ultimate response.)
The latest move by Toyota in response to all this is to stop production and sale of the models involved.
There's been lots of commentary and analysis of what is going on, and I'd like to try to summarize some of what's being said.
One article I saw said that Toyota, in its attempt to grow quickly and surpass General Motors as the world's biggest car maker, began to use new suppliers rather than its tried-and-true, small stable of Japanese component manufacturers (in this case, the pedal assembly was made in a U.S. plant of a Canadian-owned company).
One commentator, a University of Michigan professor, seemed to be saying that in any car, as components age, the gas pedal can potentially stick.
Another commentator said that, because a widespread problem with its products has been so rare for Toyota, they don't have experience in dealing with that kind of problem.
Well, any carmaker's products can come under the microscope like this. Certainly it's to Toyota's credit that we have heard about Toyota recalls much less often than, say, Chrysler recalls. Other makers even have had a similar problem with their cars, and that certainly hurt their image for many years.
I don't know whether car buyers will think twice about buying a Toyota. I am sure that at some point—just as in a homicide investigation by the police—everything will be figured out and we will find out who, or what, the real culprit was. Maybe in the meantime we should all adopt a wait-and-see posture.
A big question in my mind is, What does all this imply for Toyota's almost legendary reputation for quality and reliability? (In the interest of disclosure, I am a Toyota owner myself, but mine is not one of the models being recalled.) Take this latest together with a story about a week ago that said that Toyota was starting to use poorer-quality parts, and—well, it's enough to make you take a closer look at some of the competing makes.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
If you have been hiding out in a cave or on top of the Himalayas for a while, the story is about a problem of some Toyota and Lexus models such that they accelerate out of control. This problem has even caused fatal crashes.
First the problem was blamed on floor mats that were catching the accelerator pedals and making them stick in a depressed position. Then it seemed it was not so simple. There's even been some talk that it's a software problem. (These days, a lot of cars are "drive by wire," where, rather than the gas pedal just having a mechanical link to the throttle on the engine, the gas pedal is really an electrical or electronic control, and the car's computer mediates between the pedal's input and the engine's ultimate response.)
The latest move by Toyota in response to all this is to stop production and sale of the models involved.
There's been lots of commentary and analysis of what is going on, and I'd like to try to summarize some of what's being said.
One article I saw said that Toyota, in its attempt to grow quickly and surpass General Motors as the world's biggest car maker, began to use new suppliers rather than its tried-and-true, small stable of Japanese component manufacturers (in this case, the pedal assembly was made in a U.S. plant of a Canadian-owned company).
One commentator, a University of Michigan professor, seemed to be saying that in any car, as components age, the gas pedal can potentially stick.
Another commentator said that, because a widespread problem with its products has been so rare for Toyota, they don't have experience in dealing with that kind of problem.
Well, any carmaker's products can come under the microscope like this. Certainly it's to Toyota's credit that we have heard about Toyota recalls much less often than, say, Chrysler recalls. Other makers even have had a similar problem with their cars, and that certainly hurt their image for many years.
I don't know whether car buyers will think twice about buying a Toyota. I am sure that at some point—just as in a homicide investigation by the police—everything will be figured out and we will find out who, or what, the real culprit was. Maybe in the meantime we should all adopt a wait-and-see posture.
A big question in my mind is, What does all this imply for Toyota's almost legendary reputation for quality and reliability? (In the interest of disclosure, I am a Toyota owner myself, but mine is not one of the models being recalled.) Take this latest together with a story about a week ago that said that Toyota was starting to use poorer-quality parts, and—well, it's enough to make you take a closer look at some of the competing makes.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Becoming a Millionaire, for Dummies
Sometimes I watch "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," but I much prefer "Jeopardy!"
"Jeopardy!" gets some pretty bright contestants, and I try to match wits with them. (When it comes to current culture--movies, music-- or technology, these people have it all over me; but when it comes to things like classical music, opera, Greek mythology, I typically know answers when they do not. That's the difference between what I know and what younger folks know these days.)
On the other hand, I don't think that "Millionaire" contestants are very bright. There was the famous instance (I didn't see this one myself) where, as the first, $200 question, the contestant was asked "Which of these is the largest?" and three of the choices were "a peanut; an elephant; the moon." (I don't know what the fourth answer choice was, but on those $200 questions the fourth choice is always something comical and really preposterous, and the audience laughs--just in case the contestant didn't get the point that that is not a serious option.)
And--do you believe?-- the contestant didn't know. She used one of the "lifelines," "Phone a friend." The friend urged her to say "The moon." She said, "Are you sure?" and was doubtful, and did not give that as her answer!
Another gripe of mine about the show is how the contestants are coddled and have things made so easy for them. The show has had--counting as a single contestant--newly-wed couples, and other couples such that two people could put their heads together. Makes me want to say "No fair!"
Also, the show didn't used to have any time limit. The producers finally wised up and, to make things a little harder, started using a clock. But the contestants still get those lifelines, so that they themselves don't have to know the answer. What is up with winning money when it's someone else who knows the answer? One day, on a question involving knowledge of Moroccan cuisine, the contestant was able to ask George Stephanopoulos, who knew the correct answer, and thus won $25,000. I thought the money should have gone to George Stephanopoulos, although these days, I guess, George is doing okay and probably does not need that money. Another time a woman won $15,000 when she did not know two consecutive questions.
Also, Millionaire questions are still multiple-choice, whereas Jeopardy! questions are not. Still, on Jeopardy! you can guess, and one contestant sometimes gets a helpful hint from the wrong answers of one or both of the other contestants.
I feel Jeopardy! contestants have to work pretty hard to win a few thousand dollars, whereas a Millionaire contestant can answer the first few questions and win a few thousand dollars by not knowing any of the answers him or her self!
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
"Jeopardy!" gets some pretty bright contestants, and I try to match wits with them. (When it comes to current culture--movies, music-- or technology, these people have it all over me; but when it comes to things like classical music, opera, Greek mythology, I typically know answers when they do not. That's the difference between what I know and what younger folks know these days.)
On the other hand, I don't think that "Millionaire" contestants are very bright. There was the famous instance (I didn't see this one myself) where, as the first, $200 question, the contestant was asked "Which of these is the largest?" and three of the choices were "a peanut; an elephant; the moon." (I don't know what the fourth answer choice was, but on those $200 questions the fourth choice is always something comical and really preposterous, and the audience laughs--just in case the contestant didn't get the point that that is not a serious option.)
And--do you believe?-- the contestant didn't know. She used one of the "lifelines," "Phone a friend." The friend urged her to say "The moon." She said, "Are you sure?" and was doubtful, and did not give that as her answer!
Another gripe of mine about the show is how the contestants are coddled and have things made so easy for them. The show has had--counting as a single contestant--newly-wed couples, and other couples such that two people could put their heads together. Makes me want to say "No fair!"
Also, the show didn't used to have any time limit. The producers finally wised up and, to make things a little harder, started using a clock. But the contestants still get those lifelines, so that they themselves don't have to know the answer. What is up with winning money when it's someone else who knows the answer? One day, on a question involving knowledge of Moroccan cuisine, the contestant was able to ask George Stephanopoulos, who knew the correct answer, and thus won $25,000. I thought the money should have gone to George Stephanopoulos, although these days, I guess, George is doing okay and probably does not need that money. Another time a woman won $15,000 when she did not know two consecutive questions.
Also, Millionaire questions are still multiple-choice, whereas Jeopardy! questions are not. Still, on Jeopardy! you can guess, and one contestant sometimes gets a helpful hint from the wrong answers of one or both of the other contestants.
I feel Jeopardy! contestants have to work pretty hard to win a few thousand dollars, whereas a Millionaire contestant can answer the first few questions and win a few thousand dollars by not knowing any of the answers him or her self!
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Lie to, Deceive, Manipulate Them--They're Only the Great Unwashed Masses
Woe be to he (or she) who is not good at mental math these days. When items in the supermarket are priced at, for example, "6/$3.00" (and so much in the store seems to have that kind of price, these days), do all shoppers know how much they are paying per item? This example is fairly easy; but how about "3/$5.00"? I have no problem with the mental math, but many people would; and even to me it's annoying when stores do that. I don't know whether they do it to make you think you need to buy 3, or 6, or 10 of the item, or just to obscure the per-item cost.
Do people realize that if a merchant's offer says "Buy one, get the second one for 50% off," the buyer is really getting 25% off the total cost? (Do the math: Say the item is $1.00. Then you're paying $1.50 instead of $2.00 for two, a savings of only one-fourth or 25%.) Or if it's "Buy three tires, get the fourth free," that also is 25% off the total. (As an example, let's say tires are $50 each. When you pay $150 for three instead of $200, you've saved $50 or one-fourth--25%.)
When a pitchman on TV is selling something for, say, $19.95, and then says he'll give you a second one free, that means the item is really $10 each—but you are being forced to buy two of them. By the way, so many small items, these days—like pairs of shoelaces and little night-light bulbs--force you to buy several of them because they are packaged together in those abominable plastic bubbles. I had to buy two eye droppers and can't foresee using the second one.
Back to those TV pitches: they might throw in a lot of "extra" and "free" stuff ("but wait, there's more!") and say it's "a $40 value." Such claims are meaningless. How can you verify what the "value" of the package is? Also, note that "shipping and handling" charges are often downplayed. They can be very high and, in fact, the vendor may make most of his profit from "shipping and handling." Also, they might say "Five easy payments of $29.99." Of course this makes it sound cheap but, unless you do that math (again), you may not realize you're paying $150.
Have you noticed that, in advertising, prices so often are preceded by "just" or "only"? A little bit of psychology to make you think it's a bargain or a good value. Be on your guard for this little bit of manipulation.
Here is a link to an article on the tricks that restaurants use in their menus to steer customers toward more expensive choices: http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/01/15/secret-restaurant-menu-tricks-dissecting-california-pizza-kitch/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl3|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2010%2F01%2F15%2Fsecret-restaurant-menu-tricks-dissecting-california-pizza-kitch%2F
Everybody wants us to buy his cola, candy, or candidate. So they make us think theirs is better, and/or that the other choice is worse. So what if they stretch the truth a little bit sometimes?
We are manipulated and deceived countless times per day--by marketers, advertisers, politicians (who notoriously have been known to deceive and out-and-out lie in their campaigns), the government, and our bosses. It's the attitude of those who govern us—in the workplace and elsewhere—that we don't need or don't deserve the truth, that the masses are fair game for every kind of deception, manipulation, and withholding of information.
I expect to blog more about these matters.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Do people realize that if a merchant's offer says "Buy one, get the second one for 50% off," the buyer is really getting 25% off the total cost? (Do the math: Say the item is $1.00. Then you're paying $1.50 instead of $2.00 for two, a savings of only one-fourth or 25%.) Or if it's "Buy three tires, get the fourth free," that also is 25% off the total. (As an example, let's say tires are $50 each. When you pay $150 for three instead of $200, you've saved $50 or one-fourth--25%.)
When a pitchman on TV is selling something for, say, $19.95, and then says he'll give you a second one free, that means the item is really $10 each—but you are being forced to buy two of them. By the way, so many small items, these days—like pairs of shoelaces and little night-light bulbs--force you to buy several of them because they are packaged together in those abominable plastic bubbles. I had to buy two eye droppers and can't foresee using the second one.
Back to those TV pitches: they might throw in a lot of "extra" and "free" stuff ("but wait, there's more!") and say it's "a $40 value." Such claims are meaningless. How can you verify what the "value" of the package is? Also, note that "shipping and handling" charges are often downplayed. They can be very high and, in fact, the vendor may make most of his profit from "shipping and handling." Also, they might say "Five easy payments of $29.99." Of course this makes it sound cheap but, unless you do that math (again), you may not realize you're paying $150.
Have you noticed that, in advertising, prices so often are preceded by "just" or "only"? A little bit of psychology to make you think it's a bargain or a good value. Be on your guard for this little bit of manipulation.
Here is a link to an article on the tricks that restaurants use in their menus to steer customers toward more expensive choices: http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/01/15/secret-restaurant-menu-tricks-dissecting-california-pizza-kitch/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl3|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walletpop.com%2Fblog%2F2010%2F01%2F15%2Fsecret-restaurant-menu-tricks-dissecting-california-pizza-kitch%2F
Everybody wants us to buy his cola, candy, or candidate. So they make us think theirs is better, and/or that the other choice is worse. So what if they stretch the truth a little bit sometimes?
We are manipulated and deceived countless times per day--by marketers, advertisers, politicians (who notoriously have been known to deceive and out-and-out lie in their campaigns), the government, and our bosses. It's the attitude of those who govern us—in the workplace and elsewhere—that we don't need or don't deserve the truth, that the masses are fair game for every kind of deception, manipulation, and withholding of information.
I expect to blog more about these matters.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, January 8, 2010
Current Commentary
UPS announced that they are laying off 1800 employees. The laid-off employees are getting a severance package, but they have to deliver it themselves.
Al-Quaeda recruiting poster seen recently: "Wanted, radical young men, not too well hung. Must have room in their underwear for explosives."
You know how, when there's been an airplane crash, the investigators search for the cockpit voice recorder? They want to hear what the pilot was saying before the crash. Well, I can tell you what the pilot says in 97% of crashes: "Ooohhh, SHIIIITTTTT!!!"
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Al-Quaeda recruiting poster seen recently: "Wanted, radical young men, not too well hung. Must have room in their underwear for explosives."
You know how, when there's been an airplane crash, the investigators search for the cockpit voice recorder? They want to hear what the pilot was saying before the crash. Well, I can tell you what the pilot says in 97% of crashes: "Ooohhh, SHIIIITTTTT!!!"
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Protests Against Health Care Reform: Misguided?
We are seeing so many lists, upon entering a new year and a new decade: the bests and worsts of the year and of the decade recently ended.
I just saw a list of the ten dumbest things said in 2009. One was a protest sign reading "Government hands off my Medicare." Okay, if you need a second to see what is wrong with that, it's that Medicare is a government program.
Do we presume the person holding that sign didn't know that? That depends on how dumb you are prepared to believe people are. Maybe, to be charitable, the person just meant, "I like my Medicare as it is, so I hope that health-care reform laws won't do anything to change Medicare for the worse." (See, I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt. And slogans, whether chanted or on signs, are always brief and oversimplify the issues.)
In either event--whether this was actually pretty mindless, or a reasonable concern--as I've said before, special interests, who don't want changes that would benefit the majority if it might adversely impact them, are behind these demonstrations, are recruiting the "teabaggers"--people who might be not thinking very carefully or are misinformed--and using them as their dupes. If ordinary people are afraid of changes coming to health care, it may be because they are afraid of change or because they have been falsely led to believe that the changes will be bad--for instance, Sarah Palin wrongly saying that there would be "death panels."
But don't get me started on Sarah Palin.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
I just saw a list of the ten dumbest things said in 2009. One was a protest sign reading "Government hands off my Medicare." Okay, if you need a second to see what is wrong with that, it's that Medicare is a government program.
Do we presume the person holding that sign didn't know that? That depends on how dumb you are prepared to believe people are. Maybe, to be charitable, the person just meant, "I like my Medicare as it is, so I hope that health-care reform laws won't do anything to change Medicare for the worse." (See, I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt. And slogans, whether chanted or on signs, are always brief and oversimplify the issues.)
In either event--whether this was actually pretty mindless, or a reasonable concern--as I've said before, special interests, who don't want changes that would benefit the majority if it might adversely impact them, are behind these demonstrations, are recruiting the "teabaggers"--people who might be not thinking very carefully or are misinformed--and using them as their dupes. If ordinary people are afraid of changes coming to health care, it may be because they are afraid of change or because they have been falsely led to believe that the changes will be bad--for instance, Sarah Palin wrongly saying that there would be "death panels."
But don't get me started on Sarah Palin.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
